Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 72 / Monday, April 16, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 18889 

standards would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., specifications 

of materials, performance, design, or 

operation; test methods; sampling 

procedures; and related management 

systems practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. 

This rule does not use technical 

standards. Therefore, we did not 

consider the use of voluntary consensus 

standards. 

Environment 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Commandant Instruction M16475.lD 

and Department of Homeland Security 

Management Directive 5100.1, which 

guide the Coast Guard in complying 

with the National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–

4370f), and have concluded that there 

are no factors in this case that would 

limit the use of a categorical exclusion 

under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. 

Therefore, this rule is categorically 

excluded, under figure 2–1, paragraph 

(34)(g), of the Instruction, from further 

environmental documentation. An 

‘‘Environmental Analysis Check List’’

will be available in the docket where 

indicated under ADDRESSES. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, and 

Waterways. 

■ For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR part 165 Subpart C as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 

1.05–1(g), 6.04–1, 6.04–6 and 160.5; Pub. L. 

107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. Add temporary § 165.T05–035, to 

read as follows: 

§ 165.T05–035 Security Zone: Wallops 

Island, Virginia. 

(a) Location. The following area is a 

safety zone: All navigable waters from 

37°–48′–30′′N/075°–31′–58′′W on 

Northam Narrows to 37°–51′–30′′N/ 

075°–28′–36′′W on Cat Creek, thence to 

a point following the Virginia coastal 

and inland shoreline to a point on the 

northeast tip of Wallops Island at 37°–

53′–03′′N/075°–25′–05′′W, thence 

easterly to a point on the southwest tip 

of Assateague Island at 37°–52′–28′′N/ 

075°–24′–20′′W, thence along the 

shoreline to a point on the southeast 

side of Assateague Island at 37°–51′–

32′′N/075°–22′–01′′W, thence easterly to 

a point on the United States territorial 

seas boundary line at 37°–47′–30′′N/ 

075°–09′–55′′W. The regulated area will 

continue in a southerly direction along 

the United States territorial seas 

boundary line to a point at 37°–40′–

56′′N/075°–21′–12′′W, thence westerly 

to a point on Assawoman Island at 37°–

47′–11′′N/075°–31′–34′′W, thence back 

again to the point of origin in the 

Captain of the Port, Hampton Roads, 

Virginia zone as defined in 33 CFR 

3.25–10. 

(b) Definition. As used in this section 

Captain of the Port Representative: Any 

U.S. Coast Guard commissioned, 

warrant or petty officer who has been 

authorized by the Captain of the Port, 

Hampton Roads, Virginia to act on his 

behalf. 

(c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with 

the general regulations in 165.23 of this 

part, entry into this zone is prohibited 

unless authorized by the Captain of the 

Port, Hampton Roads or his designated 

representatives. 

(2) The operator of any vessel in the 

immediate vicinity of this safety zone 

shall: 

(i) Stop the vessel immediately upon 

being directed to do so by any 

commissioned, warrant or petty officer 

on shore or on board a vessel that is 

displaying a U.S. Coast Guard Ensign. 

(ii) Proceed as directed by any 

commissioned, warrant or petty officer 

on shore or on board a vessel that is 

displaying a U.S. Coast Guard Ensign. 

(3) The Captain of the Port, Hampton 

Roads and the Sector Duty Officer at 

Sector Hampton Roads in Portsmouth, 

Virginia can be contacted at telephone 

number (757) 668–5555 or (757) 484–

8192. 

(4) The Coast Guard Representatives 

enforcing the safety zone can be 

contacted on VHF–FM 13 and 16. 

(d) Effective Date. This regulation is 

effective from 2 a.m. on April 21, 2007 

until 5 a.m. on April 24, 2007. 

Dated: April 4, 2007. 

Patrick B. Trapp, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port, Hampton Roads. 

[FR Doc. E7–7183 Filed 4–13–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[CGD01–07–33] 

RIN 1625–AA00 

Safety Zone; South Portland, ME, Gulf 

Blasting Project 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Temporary final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is reinstating 

the temporary safety zone around the 

blasting and dredging project near the 

Gulf Oil Terminal Berth in South 

Portland, Maine and around the M/V 

RELIANCE. These safety zones are 

needed to protect persons, facilities, 

vessels and others in the maritime 

community from the safety hazards 

associated with this blasting and 

dredging project, which is being 

undertaken to increase the water depth 

of the Gulf Oil Terminal Berth to 41 feet. 

Entry into this safety zone is prohibited 

unless authorized by the Captain of the 

Port, Northern New England. 

DATES: This rule is effective from 8 a.m. 

Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) April 2, 

2007 until 11:59 p.m. Eastern Daylight 

Time (EDT) on April 15, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this 

preamble as being available in the 

docket are part of docket CGD01–07–

012 and are available for inspection or 

copying at U.S. Coast Guard Sector 

Northern New England, 259 High Street, 

South Portland, ME 04106 between the 

hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

LTJG Jarrett Bleacher, at (207) 741–5421. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulatory Information 

On February 20, 2007, we enacted a 

Temporary Final Rule (TFR) entitled 

‘‘Safety Zone; South Portland, Maine, 

Gulf Blasting Project’’. (72 FR 10360, 

March 8, 2007) The original effective 

period for this rule was from 7 a.m. 

Eastern Standard Time (EST) on 

February 20, 2007 until 4 p.m. Eastern 

Daylight Time (EDT) on March 31, 2007. 

In order to maintain the protection of 

persons, facilities, vessels and others in 

the maritime community from the safety 

hazards associated with this blasting 

and dredging project, as the blasting 

contractor has informed the Coast Guard 

that operations will not be completed 

within the scheduled timeframe, we 

find it necessary to reissue a temporary 

regulation establishing a safety zone 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES
18890 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 72 / Monday, April 16, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

around the South Portland Maine, Gulf 

blasting project. 

We did not publish a notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this 

regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the 

Coast Guard finds that good cause exists 

for not publishing an NPRM because 

any delay encountered with this 

regulation would be contrary to public 

safety since the safety zone is needed to 

provide for the safety of life on 

navigable waters and to prevent traffic 

from transiting within the waters 

effected by this blasting and dredging 

project. The details of this project’s 

continuation were not provided to the 

Coast Guard until March 22, 2007 

making it impossible to publish a NPRM 

or a final rule 30 days in advance. 

Similarly, Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), 

the Coast Guard finds that good cause 

exists for making this rule effective less 

than 30 days after publication in the 

Federal Register. Delaying this rule 

would be contrary to the public interest 

since continued action is necessary to 

protect persons, facilities, vessels and 

others in the maritime community from 

the safety hazards associated with the 

handling, detonation, and transportation 

of explosives. 

Background and Purpose 

The explosives loading and blasting 

operations will continue to occur at 

various times during the period between 

March 31, 2007 and April 15, 2007. The 

blasting plan calls for the drilling, 

blasting, and dredging of various areas 

within the berthing area of the Gulf Oil 

Terminal in South Portland, Maine. The 

explosives loading will occur at East 

End Beach at the Eastern Promenade, 

Portland, Maine, or at the municipal 

boat ramp at Bug Light Park, South 

Portland, Maine. The explosives will be 

transported via truck aboard M/V 

RELIANCE to the Gulf Oil Terminal in 

South Portland where the blasting and 

dredging project will be conducted. This 

regulation establishes a moving safety 

zone in all waters of the Fore River and 

Casco Bay in a 100-yard radius around 

the M/V RELIANCE as it transits from 

the East End Beach or Bug Light Park to 

the Gulf Facility and from the Gulf 

Facility back to the East End Beach or 

Bug Light Park. It also establishes a 100- 

yard safety zone around the perimeter of 

the affected portion of the berthing area 

of the Gulf Oil Terminal while blasting 

operations are being conducted. This 

area is defined as all of the waters 

enclosed by a line starting from a point 

located at the western side of the Gulf 

Oil Terminal Dock at latitude 

43°39′12.537′′ N, longitude 

70°14′25.923′′ W; thence to latitude 

43°39′10.082′′ N, longitude 

70°14′26.287′′ W; thence to latitude 

43°39′10.209′′ N, longitude 

70°14′27.910′′ W; thence to latitude 

43°39′12.664′′ N, longitude 

70°14′27.546′′ W; thence to the point of 

beginning.(DATUM:NAD 83). These 

safety zones are required to protect the 

maritime community from the hazards 

associated with the loading, detonation, 

and transportation of explosives. Entry 

into this zone will be prohibited unless 

authorized by the Captain of the Port. 

Discussion of Rule 

This rule continues to provide for the 

safety of vessel traffic and the maritime 

public from the hazards associated with 

blasting operations on the designated 

waters in the Fore River. This TFR 

reinstates a temporary safety zone 

around the blasting and dredging project 

near the Gulf Oil Terminal Berth in 

South Portland. 

This document restricts vessel traffic 

in various portions of the Fore River and 

Casco Bay while the M/V RELIANCE is 

in transit and around the perimeter of 

the affected portion of the Gulf Oil 

Terminal when blasting operations are 

taking place. Although the safety zone 

being reinstated will be in effect for two 

weeks, as before, it will only be 

enforced during actual transit and 

blasting times. Entry into those zones by 

any vessel is prohibited unless 

specifically authorized by the Captain of 

the Port, Northern New England. 

The Captain of the Port anticipates 

negligible negative impact on vessel 

traffic from this temporary safety zone 

as it will be in effect only during transit 

and blasting operations. Blasting 

operations are anticipated to occur only 

two to three times per week between the 

hours of 7 a.m. and 4 p.m. The moving 

safety zone around the M/V RELIANCE 

will be enforced only during the transit 

of explosives to the site and from the 

site back to shore with unused 

explosives. The zone around the 

perimeter of the work site extends only 

minimally into the channel and will not 

affect vessels transiting in or out of the 

port. The zone around the worksite will 

be enforced only during the actual 

blasting times. The enhanced safety to 

life and property provided by this rule 

greatly outweighs any potential negative 

impacts. Public notifications will be 

made during the entire effective period 

of this safety zone via marine 

information broadcasts. 

Regulatory Evaluation 

This rule is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review, and does not 

require an assessment of potential costs 

and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that 

Order. The Office of Management and 

Budget has not reviewed it under that 

Order. The Coast Guard expects the 

economic impact of this rule to be so 

minimal that a full regulatory evaluation 

is unnecessary. The effect of this rule 

will not be significant for the following 

reasons: The safety zone will be 

enforced only during the transit of the 

M/V RELIANCE and during blasting 

operations. There is adequate room in 

the channel for vessels to transit during 

the blasting operations. Vessels will be 

permitted to transit and navigate in the 

effected waters when no blasting is 

taking place, minimizing any adverse 

impact. Additionally, extensive 

maritime advisories will be broadcast 

during the duration of the effective 

period. 

Small Entities 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered 

whether this rule would have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises 

small businesses, not-for-profit 

organizations that are independently 

owned and operated and are not 

dominant in their fields, and 

governmental jurisdictions with 

populations of less than 50,000. 

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 

U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

This rule may affect the following 

entities, some of which may be small 

entities: The owners or operators of 

vessels intending to transit in the safety 

zone during this demolition event. 

However, this rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities due 

to the minimal time that vessels will be 

restricted from the area, the ample space 

available for vessels to maneuver and 

navigate around the zone, and advance 

notifications will be made to the local 

community by marine information 

broadcasts. 

Assistance for Small Entities 

Under section 213(a) of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121]), 

we want to assist small entities in 

understanding this proposed rule so that 

they can better evaluate its effects on 

them and participate in the rulemaking 

process. If this rule will affect your 

small business, organization or 

governmental jurisdiction and you have 

questions concerning its provisions or 

options for compliance, please contact 

LTJG Jarrett Bleacher at (207) 741–5421, 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 72 / Monday, April 16, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 18891 

Sector Northern New England, 

Waterways Management Division. 

Small businesses may send comments 

on the actions of Federal employees 

who enforce, or otherwise determine 

compliance with, Federal regulations to 

the Small Business and Agriculture 

Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman 

and the Regional Small Business 

Regulatory Fairness Boards. The 

Ombudsman evaluates these actions 

annually and rates each agency’s 

responsiveness to small business. If you 

wish to comment on actions by 

employees of the Coast Guard, call 1–

888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). The 

Coast Guard will not retaliate against 

small entities that question or complain 

about this rule or any police or action 

of the Coast Guard. 

Collection of Information 

This rule calls for no new collection 

of information under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–

3520). 

Federalism 

A rule has implications for federalism 

under Executive Order 13132, 

Federalism, if it has a substantial direct 

effect on State or local governments and 

would either preempt State law or 

impose a substantial direct cost of 

compliance on them. We have analyzed 

this rule under that Order and have 

determined that it does not have 

implications for federalism. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act addresses actions 

that may result in the expenditure by a 

State, local, or tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100,000,000 or more in any one year. 

Though this rule will not result in such 

an expenditure, we do discuss the 

effects of this rule elsewhere in this 

preamble. 

Taking of Private Property 

This rule will not effect a taking of 

private property or otherwise have 

taking implications under Executive 

Order 12630, Governmental Actions and 

Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights. 

Civil Justice Reform 

This rule meets applicable standards 

in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive 

Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to 

minimize litigation, eliminate 

ambiguity, and reduce burden. 

Protection of Children 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not 

an economically significant rule and 

does not create an environmental risk to 

health or risk to safety that may 

disproportionately affect children. 

Indian Tribal Governments 

This rule does not have tribal 

implications under Executive Order 

13175, Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments, 

because it does not have a substantial 

direct effect on one or more Indian 

tribes, on the relationship between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes. 

Energy Effects 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. We have 

determined that it is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under that order because 

it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under Executive Order 12866 and is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. The Administrator of the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

has not designated it as a significant 

energy action. Therefore, it does not 

require a Statement of Energy Effects 

under Executive Order 13211. 

Technical Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 

U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use 

voluntary consensus standards in their 

regulatory activities unless the agency 

provides Congress, through the Office of 

Management and Budget, with an 

explanation of why using these 

standards would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., specifications 

of materials, performance, design, or 

operation; test methods; sampling 

procedures; and related management 

systems practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. 

This rule does not use technical 

standards. Therefore, we did not 

consider the use of voluntary consensus 

standards. 

Environment 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, 

which guides the Coast Guard in 

complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have concluded that there are no factors 

in this case that would limit the use of 

a categorical exclusion under section 

2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this 

rule is categorically excluded, under 

figure 2–1, paragraph (34)(g), of the 

Instruction, from further environmental 

documentation. 

This rule fits the category selected 

from paragraph (34)(g), as it establishes 

a safety zone. A final ‘‘Environmental 

Analysis Check List’’ and a final 

‘‘Categorical Exclusion Determination’’

will be available in the docket where 

indicated under ADDRESSES. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

■ For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05–1(g), 

6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107–295, 

116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland 

Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. Add temporary § 165.T01–012 to 

read as follows: 

§ 165.T01–012 Safety Zone: Gulf Oil 

Terminal Dredging Project, South Portland, 

ME. 

(a) Location. The following area is a 

safety zone: All waters of the Fore River 

and Casco Bay in a 100 yard radius 

around the M/V RELIANCE as it transits 

from the East End Beach or Bug Light 

Park to the Gulf Oil Terminal Facility 

and from the Gulf Oil Terminal Facility 

back to the East End Beach or Bug Light 

Park, while transporting explosives; 

and, all waters in a 100 yard radius 

around the perimeter of the berthing 

area of the Gulf Oil Terminal while 

blasting operations are being conducted. 

This area is defined as: All of the waters 

enclosed by a line starting from a point 

located at the western side of the Gulf 

Oil Terminal Dock at longitude 

43°39′12.537′′ N, longitude 

70°14′25.923′′ W; thence to latitude 

43°39′10.082′′ N, longitude 

70°14′26.287′′ W; thence to latitude 

43°39′10.209′′ N, longitude 

70°14′27.910′′ W; thence to latitude 

43°39′12.664′′ N, longitude 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES
18892 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 72 / Monday, April 16, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

70°14′27.546′′ W; thence to the point of 

beginning.(DATUM:NAD 83). All 

vessels are restricted from entering this 

area. 

(b) Effective Date. This section is 

effective 8 a.m. April 2, 2007 until 11:59 

p.m. on April 15, 2007. 

(c) Definitions. (1) Designated 

representative means a Coast Guard 

Patrol Commander, including a Coast 

Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other 

officer operating a Coast Guard vessel 

and a Federal, State, and local officer 

designated by or assisting the Captain of 

the Port (COTP). 

(2) [Reserved] 

(d) Regulations. (1) In accordance 

with the general regulations in 165.23 of 

this part, entry into or movement within 

this zone by any person or vessel is 

prohibited unless authorized by the 

COTP, Northern New England or the 

COTP’s designated representative. 

(2) The safety zone is closed to all 

vessel traffic, except as may be 

permitted by the COTP or the COTP’s 

designated representative. 

(3) Vessel operators desiring to enter 

or operate within the safety zone may 

contact the COTP or the COTP’s 

designated representative at telephone 

number 207–767–0303 or on VHF 

Channel 13 (156.7 MHz) or VHF 

channel 16 (156.8 MHz) to seek 

permission to do so. If permission is 

granted, all persons and vessels must 

comply with the instructions given to 

them by the COTP or the COTP’s 

designated representative. 

Dated: April 2, 2007. 

S.P. Garrity, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port, Northern New England. 

[FR Doc. E7–7187 Filed 4–13–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Patent and Trademark Office 

37 CFR Parts 1 and 41 

[Docket No.: PTO–P–2005–0016] 

RIN 0651–AB77 

Revisions and Technical Corrections 

Affecting Requirements for Ex Parte 

and Inter Partes Reexamination 

AGENCY: United States Patent and 

Trademark Office, Department of 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The United States Patent and 

Trademark Office (Office) is revising the 

rules of practice relating to ex parte and 

inter partes reexamination. The Office is 

designating the correspondence address 

for the patent as the correct address for 

all communications for patent owners in 

an ex parte reexamination or an inter 

partes reexamination, and simplifying 

the filing of reexamination papers by 

providing for the use of a single ‘‘mail 

stop’’ address for the filing of 

substantially all ex parte reexamination 

papers (such is already the case for inter 

partes reexamination papers). The 

Office is revising the rules to prohibit 

supplemental patent owner responses to 

an Office action in an inter partes 

reexamination proceeding without a 

showing of sufficient cause. Finally, the 

Office is making miscellaneous 

clarifying changes as to terminology and 

applicability of the reexamination rules. 

The Office is not implementing its 

proposal (that was set forth in the 

proposed rule making) to newly provide 

for a patent owner reply to a request for 

reexamination, prior to the Office’s 

decision on the request. 

DATES: Effective Date: May 16, 2007. 

Applicability Date: The changes in 

this final rule apply to any 

reexamination proceeding (ex parte or 

inter partes) which is pending before the 

Office as of May 16, 2007 and to any 

reexamination proceeding which is filed 

after that date. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By 

telephone—Kenneth M. Schor, Senior 

Legal Advisor at (571) 272–7710; by 

mail addressed to U.S. Patent and 

Trademark Office, Mail Stop 

Comments—Patents, Commissioner for 

Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 

22313–1450, marked to the attention of 

Kenneth M. Schor; by facsimile 

transmission to (571) 273–7710 marked 

to the attention of Kenneth M. Schor; or 

by electronic mail message (e-mail) over 

the Internet addressed to 

kenneth.schor@uspto.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Office 

is revising the rules of practice relating 

to ex parte and inter partes 

reexamination as follows: 

I: Designating the correspondence 

address for the patent as the correct 

address for all notices, official letters, 

and other communications for patent 

owners in an ex parte reexamination or 

an inter partes reexamination. Also, 

simplifying the filing of reexamination 

papers by providing for the use of ‘‘Mail 

Stop Ex Parte Reexam’’ for the filing of 

all ex parte reexamination papers (not 

just ex parte reexamination requests), 

other than certain correspondence to the 

Office of the General Counsel. 

II: Prohibiting supplemental patent 

owner responses to an Office action in 

an inter partes reexamination without a 

showing of sufficient cause. 

III: Making miscellaneous clarifying 

changes as to the terminology and 

applicability of the reexamination rules, 

and correcting inadvertent errors in the 

text of certain reexamination rules. 

I. Reexamination Correspondence 

Subpart 1—The Patent Owner’s 

Address of Record: Section 1.33(c) has 

been revised to designate the 

correspondence address for the patent to 

be reexamined, or being reexamined, as 

the correct address for all notices, 

official letters, and other 

communications for patent owners in 

reexamination proceedings. Prior to this 

revision to § 1.33(c), all notices, official 

letters, and other communications for 

patent owners in a reexamination 

proceeding had been directed to the 

attorney or agent of record in the patent 

file at the address listed on the register 

of patent attorneys and agents 

maintained by the Office of Enrollment 

and Discipline (OED) pursuant to § 11.5 

and § 11.11 (hereinafter, the ‘‘attorney or 

agent of record register address’’). 

The correspondence address for any 

pending reexamination proceeding not 

having the same correspondence 

address as that of the patent is, by way 

of this revision to § 1.33(c), 

automatically changed to that of the 

patent file—as of the effective date of 

this Notice. For any such proceeding, it 

is strongly encouraged that the patent 

owner affirmatively file a Notification of 

Change of Correspondence Address in 

the reexamination proceeding and/or 

the patent to conform the address of the 

proceeding with that of the patent and 

to clarify the record as to which address 

should be used for correspondence. 

While the correspondence address 

change for the reexamination 

proceeding is automatically effected (by 

rule) even if the patent owner 

notification is not filed, such a patent 

owner notification clarifies the record, 

and addresses the possibility that, 

absent such a patent owner notification, 

correspondence may inadvertently be 

mailed to an incorrect address, causing 

a delay in the prosecution. 

This revision to § 1.33(c) is based on 

the following: (1) Prior to the revision, 

the Office had received reexamination 

filings where the request had been 

served on the patent owner at the 

correspondence address under § 1.33(a) 

that was the correct address for the 

patent, rather than at the attorney or 

agent of record register address that was 

the previously prescribed (prior to the 

present rule revision) correspondence 

address in § 1.33(c) for use in 

reexamination. This occurred because 

the § 1.33(a) address was, and is, the 

address used for correspondence during 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES